Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-26-2013, 02:35 PM   #61
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Does this mean that the formerly overweight woman does not need as much fuel to produce a given amount of muscle work, when compared to her never overweight sister? If so, are any mechanisms for this known?

Ha
I don't think it relates to muscle work, it relates to metabolic rate. Just turning the "thermostat" a bit lower can result in a lower daily caloric use even if muscle movement and "work" are identical.

And it takes a lot more calories to maintain muscles than to maintain fat, even if the muscle isn't used. This is one reason we shed muscle so quickly if it isn't used: Starvation has been the big killer of humans across our history, and our bodies do a lot to conserve energy. I can easily believe that genetically identical people subjected to different food intake/weight/exercise histories might develop different metabolic rates, baseline rates of lean muscle, etc. Just an anecdote/observation, no proof supplied here.
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 11-26-2013, 02:59 PM   #62
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
The reduced metabolism is seen with people who lost 10% of body weight, so not necessarily obesity. You can be in the overweight category and lose 10% of body weight to get to normal and still get the reduced metabolism.
Hummm. I lost about 17% of my weight (195 to 162) but I don't notice any lowering of my metabolism. That doesn't mean that a test might not have shown such a change. Just that subjectively I don't feel a desire for more food than I need. Per my post above, I am on auto pilot as long as I avoid most sugar and refined carbs. If the reduced metabolism/difficulty maintaining loss issue is real it doesn't affect everybody, or it may require more dramatic losses to kick in.
__________________

__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 03:24 PM   #63
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
Hummm. I lost about 17% of my weight (195 to 162) but I don't notice any lowering of my metabolism. That doesn't mean that a test might not have shown such a change. Just that subjectively I don't feel a desire for more food than I need. Per my post above, I am on auto pilot as long as I avoid most sugar and refined carbs. If the reduced metabolism/difficulty maintaining loss issue is real it doesn't affect everybody, or it may require more dramatic losses to kick in.
How active are you? On the National Weight Control registry I think research studies have shown that the average person (these are people who lost I think at least 30 pounds and kept it off at least a year) exercise at moderate intensity at least 1 hour a day (which is more than that of most people). That is the person who never lost weight might burn 2000 calories a day with less exercise while the person who lost weight might need burn 2000 calories but doing much more exercise than the never overweight person.

All of that said - I am quite sure there are individual variations at play. The studies are looking at groups of people and it would be rare that every person reacts identically or has identical metabolism.


If you look at this article you can see that while there was an overall reduction of energy expenditure in the reduced overweight/obese subjects there were a few that didn't show as significant a reduction.

MMS: Error

This study found the same amount of reduced energy expenditure for those who lost 10% of body weight as those who reduced 20%


I remember years ago going out to work with 2 co-workers. One of them was very obese. At the time I was in the high normal weight category. The third was in the normal range but toward the thin end. The obese co-worker and me ordered with a view toward not eating too many calories. We ordered sugar free drinks. At that time I ate like that all the time. I always watched calories and always drank non-caloric drinks.

I was astonished to see the thin co-worker ordered a chocolate milkshake, a very large cheeseburger and fries. She ate more at that meal than I would eat in a single day. We talked and I learned that she ate like that all the time. She actually had no clue as to how many calories were in any food because she paid no attention to calories. She also didn't exercise. We all 3 had the same sedentary jobs. She was just a person with a naturally high metabolism.

So - maybe you are an outlier and don't show the reduction in metabolism that most people show. In which case, you are fortunate.
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 03:39 PM   #64
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
How active are you? On the National Weight Control registry I think research studies have shown that the average person (these are people who lost I think at least 30 pounds and kept it off at least a year) exercise at moderate intensity at least 1 hour a day (which is more than that of most people).
I ride a bike about 20-30 miles three or four times a week, so I fall in the active category. But I was doing that when I was 195 so nothing has changed in that regard.

Quote:
I remember years ago going out to work with 2 co-workers...

I was astonished to see the thin co-worker ordered a chocolate milkshake, a very large cheeseburger and fries. She ate more at that meal than I would eat in a single day. We talked and I learned that she ate like that all the time. She actually had no clue as to how many calories were in any food because she paid no attention to calories. She also didn't exercise. We all 3 had the same sedentary jobs. She was just a person with a naturally high metabolism.
That was me through my 20s and I thought I was still doing fine into my 30s but the 1 pound a year creep had slipped in unnoticed. It wasn't until I was about 50 that I realized I was sucking my gut in for pictures Luckily, I am back eating like your skinny friend now only no chocolate shakes. I will still grab a double meat cheese burger with bacon for lunch now and then but I tear off about half the bun and only eat about 1/3 of the fries. I refuse to read any study that doesn't support my bias toward saturated fat.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 04:20 PM   #65
Full time employment: Posting here.
Lakedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
Hummm. I lost about 17% of my weight (195 to 162) but I don't notice any lowering of my metabolism. That doesn't mean that a test might not have shown such a change. Just that subjectively I don't feel a desire for more food than I need. Per my post above, I am on auto pilot as long as I avoid most sugar and refined carbs. If the reduced metabolism/difficulty maintaining loss issue is real it doesn't affect everybody, or it may require more dramatic losses to kick in.
Similar story here when I went low carb (210 to 175) with no change in exercise routine -- lift weights 3-4 days a week and run/walk a few miles everyday. At 6'2", I don't think I appeared much overweight to most people at 210 but I feel much better at my current weight. I can eat all I want with no weight gain even when adding a few carbs occasionally (potatoes/chocolate).
__________________
Lakedog is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 04:24 PM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,400
This is one of those things where anecdotal data is important to the individual person but is not relevant to the larger situation experienced by most people.

As far as anecdotal information, I once lost weight from 167 (which was overweight but not obese) to 119. I was exercising regularly at the time. I found it absolutely impossible to sustain my weight loss. It was very clear that I didn't have the same metabolism after losing weight as a I did before.

But, again, I'm sure there is individual variation. But, for most people there is a reduced metabolism after losing weight.
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 04:52 PM   #67
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
This is one of those things where anecdotal data is important to the individual person but is not relevant to the larger situation experienced by most people.

As far as anecdotal information, I once lost weight from 167 (which was overweight but not obese) to 119. I was exercising regularly at the time. I found it absolutely impossible to sustain my weight loss. It was very clear that I didn't have the same metabolism after losing weight as a I did before.

But, again, I'm sure there is individual variation. But, for most people there is a reduced metabolism after losing weight.
Yes, but how did you achieve that weight loss? Playing to our preconceptions, it would be by controlling your portions while continuing to eat whole grains, bread, etc. In that case, we would argue that you should try again with different macro-nutrients. On the other hand, if you achieved it by going low carb and then stayed low carb but drifted back up, we LCHF types (or at least I) would have to concede that what works for us, doesn't work for you.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 09:41 PM   #68
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
Yes, but how did you achieve that weight loss? Playing to our preconceptions, it would be by controlling your portions while continuing to eat whole grains, bread, etc. In that case, we would argue that you should try again with different macro-nutrients. On the other hand, if you achieved it by going low carb and then stayed low carb but drifted back up, we LCHF types (or at least I) would have to concede that what works for us, doesn't work for you.
I think there are two different issues. You are addressing one of them while my post was about the other.

One is whether low carb makes it easier for people to lose weight and maintain weight loss. I am not expressing an opinion on that.

The other is about the fact that weight loss itself causes the metabolism of most people to change such that after losing weight they burn fewer calories as compared to the person who has never lost at least 10% of their body weight. It has been suggested by obesity researchers that this is a significant part of the reason (maybe the most significant part) that 95% of people who lose weight gain it back within 5 years. (It might be tempting to urge that the 5% who don't gain back their weight all lost weight on low carb and continue to eat low carb. While that might be tempting it is, however, not a fact. This can be seen by looking at people who have kept weight off at the National Weight Control Registry who have been found to have used a variety of weight loss approaches.)
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 06:54 AM   #69
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
I think there are two different issues. You are addressing one of them while my post was about the other.

One is whether low carb makes it easier for people to lose weight and maintain weight loss. I am not expressing an opinion on that.

The other is about the fact that weight loss itself causes the metabolism of most people to change such that after losing weight they burn fewer calories as compared to the person who has never lost at least 10% of their body weight. It has been suggested by obesity researchers that this is a significant part of the reason (maybe the most significant part) that 95% of people who lose weight gain it back within 5 years. (It might be tempting to urge that the 5% who don't gain back their weight all lost weight on low carb and continue to eat low carb. While that might be tempting it is, however, not a fact. This can be seen by looking at people who have kept weight off at the National Weight Control Registry who have been found to have used a variety of weight loss approaches.)
I was talking about the same thing you are talking about - both issues. My question was simply inquiring whether you, personally, fit the lower metabolism model when you dropped to 116 and then drifted back up. If you lost your weight on LCHF and drifted back up while continuing to eat LCHF, I would agree that you may fit that model and may be SOL (other than thru tormenting yourself with hunger). But, if you lost the weight thru other means (e.g. calorie counting on a LFHC diet) or even lost the weight on a LCHF diet but then switched back to a regular diet and tried to maintain your weight with portion control, I would not agree that you have personally demonstrated a low metabolism issue. You may very well have simply demonstrated that it is hard to achieve weight equilibrium on a standard diet. In the later case, I would argue that you should try staying LCHF during maintenance to find out whether your body would achieve equilibrium by itself without the need to constantly remain hungry. If you haven't given that a try you can't really know it won't work (it does for many others). If you do try it and it doesn't work, then you know for sure.

By the way, I hope my follow-ups don't seem to be bashing you with my theories. I don't actually think LCHF works as well for everyone as it has for me. I am just curious whether you have actually tried it and failed.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 08:45 AM   #70
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 265
When you lose weight using a LCHF diet your muscle mass is preserved for the most part. Increases in muscle mass are possible with proper exercise; however, most merely maintain their existing muscle mass.

When you lose weight using a low-fat diet, the loss of muscle mass is usually significant.

The caloric requirement to maintain fat cells is about 2 calories per day per pound. The caloric requirement to maintain muscle cells is about 6 calories per day per pound. You can compute the approximate change in calorie requirements, if you measure body composition along the way. For LCHF it turns out to be about 2 calories per day per pound of weight loss.

Sometimes the endocrine system will attempt to conserve energy if calorie restriction is prolonged, but this happens infrequently (and rarely with LCHF). Frequent yo-yo dieting using calorie restriction *will* create problems in this regard.
__________________
rgarling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 08:54 AM   #71
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nash031's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Coronado
Posts: 1,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by timo2 View Post
Rant alert: I find that much of the attempted correlation in this thread of various individual bodily types or lifestyle characteristics to be based upon a subtext of 'blame the victim' In ancient days, if someone became ill, it was because someone sinned somehow, meaning it was their fault. Now, it is because they did this or didn't do that - still blaming the victim. The truth is life is a risk factor, and no one gets out alive. So enjoy it while you got it!
Eh. I don't know if obesity causes cancer, per se, but it does make it much more difficult to detect in a lot of cases. It is something that is wholly controllable - yes, even diabetics - to some extent. It doesn't mean we shouldn't show compassion, but it does mean that the victim could've done something to help him/herself.
__________________
nash031 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 09:10 AM   #72
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by nash031 View Post
It doesn't mean we shouldn't show compassion, but it does mean that the victim could've done something to help him/herself.
... such as Australians putting on some skin lotion for protection, as an example.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 09:26 AM   #73
Moderator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eee Bah Gum
Posts: 21,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
... such as Australians putting on some skin lotion for protection, as an example.
I had a physical 2 days ago and the doc gave the usual speech about making sure I covered up and/or applied sun screen when outside. I told him that I had a 32 year start on most around here because I grew up in the shadows of the dark satanic mills of northern England, and until I emigrated to Texas I'd spent a total of 3 weeks in a sun strong enough to burn

These days however, with better wages and cheap travel, Scotland has one of the highest rates of skin cancer in Europe as they jet off with their red headed, fair skinned, bodies to the sun every year.
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Now it's adventure before dementia
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 09:33 AM   #74
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,449
Call me a pessimist, but cancer is going to get us one way or the other. All we do is to delay it a bit, but when our own cells go berzerk after copying themselves for the umpteenth time, there's not a whole lot one can do.

In other words, eternal life is not possible. The higher up the evolution ladder a living thing is, the higher the chance of something going wrong eventually. It's the price to pay.

People should read The Cancer Chronicles (2013) by George Johnson.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 09:36 AM   #75
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
People should read The Cancer Chronicles (2013) by George Johnson.
Or not?
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 10:02 AM   #76
Moderator Emeritus
Bestwifeever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,375
I think part of the reason weight loss is difficult to maintain, especially after getting to a goal weight and reintroducing less restricted portions of carbs and fats, for example, is something called the thermic effect of eating, which I believe has been well proven, as explained here, for example:

Quote:
Roughly 10 percent of the calories you burn each day get burned by the act of digesting your food. But not all foods are created equal: Your body uses more calories to digest protein (20 to 35 calories burned for every 100 calories consumed) than it does to digest fats and carbohydrates (5 to 15 calories burned for every 100 calories consumed). That’s why adding lean, healthy protein to each meal and snack will help you burn more calories. Even better, protein can dull hunger and protect against obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
http://eatthis.menshealth.com/conten...ticle=1&page=1

So if a post-weight loss diet includes more calories from fat and carbs, even if the total calorie count is the same as during weight loss, it is almost like adding more calories. Not that anyone would do this, but if one ate 2000 calories of only protein, up to 700 calories would be used in digestion. Eating 2000 calories of only fat and/or carbs, one would use up to 300 calories in digesting them--and effectively have 400 more calories for the body to metabolize for energy or to store for later. Or about 40 lbs a year weight gain if not burned up. This may be part of the reason why weight loss through low carb methods (or really any method) is difficult to maintain for people when the maintenance level changes the ratio of carbs/protein/fats even if the calorie intake is the same.

And if you look at old family photos going back generations, it is interesting to see the same body types repeating. As with many other things, choosing your ancestors may be the most important decision we can never make in terms of appearance, disease, and opportunity.
__________________
“Would you like an adventure now, or would you like to have your tea first?” J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan
Bestwifeever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 10:29 AM   #77
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,449
I like proteins, particularly those coming from animals.

And about ancestors, is it possible that children raised by overweight parents tend to follow in the same trait because of the long-standing family diet?
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 11:24 AM   #78
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
timo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Rio Rancho
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by nash031 View Post
Eh. I don't know if obesity causes cancer, per se, but it does make it much more difficult to detect in a lot of cases. It is something that is wholly controllable - yes, even diabetics - to some extent. It doesn't mean we shouldn't show compassion, but it does mean that the victim could've done something to help him/herself.
Don't forget that some people are doing the best they can as-is. There is no need to pull out the Herman Cain 'Blame Yourself' admonition. To assume that what you or I know to do is able to be performed by others defies the laws of probability.
__________________
"We live the lives we lead because of the thoughts we think" Michael O’Neill
timo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 11:59 AM   #79
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: seattle
Posts: 643
My view is that risk factor discussion is much like treatment reccs. for populations in that what is good public health policy is not necessarily good policy for any individual patient. People can end up feeling ignored or picked on by an outlook or health protocol and thus object and push back. Discussion can get personal on an emotional level pretty quick.

@haha: I will admit to a small role in your disappointment with the tack of the thread, and thank you for the effort anyway. I think keeping this kind of stuff on an entirely academic and thoughtful footing in a public forum is somewhat wishful thinking, but kudos to the effort.

Research on disease risk factors and diet effects on humans is expensive and difficult, and while some stuff is pretty clear, I am always reminded of Einstein's quote: "as the circle of light increases, so does the circumference of darkness around it"
We have far to go on most of this stuff. JMO
__________________
bld999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 12:04 PM   #80
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,400
Duplicate post, please delete.
__________________

__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.